Article 10: The Financial Page

The Financial Page: Summary

This article is about whether or not employees being distracted by the Internet make them more productive.  In the past it has been estimated that March Madness has cost business a lot of money because of lost of productivity tied to how easy it is to get distracted by the Internet from work.  Businesses have tried many ways to reduce the Internet as a detractor by blocking Facebook and Twitter,  cutting off online shopping sites and YouTube, and having ‘acceptable use policy’ stating that the person is suppose to be working not watching a video. Now there is research stating that the policies prohibiting use of the Internet actually distracts employees focus and concentration more than with full access to the Internet. It has to do with will power, when a person uses self control in one area; it is harder from them to use self control in another area. When people use their will power to not use the Internet, they cannot use their will power to stay focused at work. The answer for businesses is not totally taking away access to the Internet because with the use of smartphones that policy would do no good. Copengagen experimenters suggest that companies should create ‘Internet breaks’ throughout the day.  This idea is not new it is similar to the 20^th century “coffee break” or the 1900’s creations of “short breaks” that enables employee’s some relief from their work load, for them to be able to be productive.  

Response:

I find this to be a very Interesting study. Although it is not new that people cannot constantly work all the time and stay focus. People need breaks for them to be on the ball.  Interesting fact that I found out a few months ago, that in long distance running it is actually beneficial to break a few times from running and walk for about 15-30sec and then start running again. A person’s time will be faster than if they ran the whole distance. The breaks make it so that they can run faster to make up for the time spent while walking and then some.

Another part I found interesting is the evolutions of breaks and their names, I think it says a lot about each century. In the 1900’s was the introduction of short break times during the day, then  into the 1950 it was completely adaptive into the work  norm. The 20^th century starting calling them “coffee breaks” which I think says a lot about the 19^th century. Coffee had influenced/infiltrated the culture so much that a break was named after it. It makes me wonder if caffeine addiction was becoming an issue of study at the time. Now the 20^th century has come around and the Internet has influenced/infiltrated our culture to a point to where we need ‘Internet breaks’. Now Internet addiction is an issue of debate by some whether or not it’s a psychological disorder or not.  Now we have two addictions to worry about because coffee has not backed down on its influence over us and with the Internet we are just beginning to understand how it is shaping our lives.

Artifact 9

This article reminded me of the struggle that museums have in getting people engaged is the same struggle that teachers have for their students. Making the art as real as possible is one way to do that. Bring in technology that is what is real in peoples live today. It seems more exciting to go online and check out a virtual museum, then maybe actually going to one because when in the museum it takes more engagement on me to go and read all the information boxes than it would be if I were to go online and a box would pop up or a virtual person would be programmed to point out the interesting facts of a particular piece of work. That is interactive both sides are interacting.

I think this is really challenging, to continuously update technology, predicting trends and not fad in what people are interested in. I guess it does help that they get a lot of their feedback from the user, but still, it takes a lot of time and money.

This kind of technology opens up a lot of doors for people to see art museums from all over the world. Soon there will almost be no place that a person will not be able to see through the Internet. I wonder if this will spark more travel? The Virtual world can only show so much of the physical world, will it engage people enough to take action? I would think that museums websites would want people to actually physically come and not just be a part of the community online.

Artifact 8

This was very interesting. I think places like WebMD are awesome places for reliable information. I think it would be interesting to see some statistics on Dr. office visits to see if less people are coming in for just minor illnesses because of websites like WebMD. I think it is so hard sometime to know whether you’re sick enough to make an appointment or not and WebMD can help inform. The interactive websites sound really cool to me because it’s taking on all angles, from the users’ side and expert side to make a product that will be/are helpful.  I’m not surprised about how many people use the Internet for heath information and advice about medical problems but I do worry about all the misinformation that is out on the web. The social networks use in health kind of scares me.  I believe people like to believe the best result when they have a worrying blood test or symptom. When people go online and ask a question, they might get false hope that a serious symptom is nothing and then they don’t make a Dr. appointment and they end up in serious trouble. I think that social networks are great for in terms of support and for finding people that have rare diseases, but in terms of advice not so much.  So the Internet can be a great resource, but is not the cure.   Like with all information obtained from the web, research should be done on any site to make sure the information is creditable.

I think that having the information online helps bring peace into people’s mind.  I remember one time I had this weird rash pop up and I had no idea what to do. I did not have health insurance, so I went online and I actually found my rash and there was no exact cause to it, and the site said that the rash last from 2-4 wks and sure enough my rash went away in about 3 1/2 weeks. I did not have to take any medication, the rash did not hurt or itch. I was glad that I found my rash because otherwise I would have been worrying the whole 3 ½ week until it went away.  

What really surprised me the most is the games they have for health. I think it is great that kids can mentally fight back whatever illness they have through the game. That is just amazing whoever thought of that.

The video talked a lot about the positives about online health.  Could it be causing more severe sicknesses? People wait longer to go see their doctors. What about computer use taking about physical activity? Causing possibly more obese people leading to more health complications. Yes there is health online, but what if getting online is causing the health problem.

Artifact 6

Christopher Poole website sound really interesting in what it does. I think anonymity is what makes the Internet unique in many ways and when that is taken away what would that mean for the Internet? I don’t think everywhere on the Internet people should be able to say whatever they want, but I think websites like Poole’s are good. When people have a place to go where they can express themselves in whatever way they want no matter how vulgar they are it will keep them out of other arenas where it would be inappropriate. I also think when people have a place to go where they are not judged as well it gives them in release through words and not through actions. It kind of scary to think of the Internet governs itself but in many ways it does. Poole gave the example of the cat abuser caught. Now how many other videos go up on the web that show crime and nothing happens I don’t know, but it shows that the Internet really has become a community that will stand together and act.

                Would some people stop using it or would more people use it? The Internet is expanding in what it can do in so many ways I think it is hard to say either way. I the Internet should remain private because that’s what I’m use to and I know and the way I use the computer I am safe. If the Internet would be non-private that opens a whole can of worms that scares me a little and I’m not sure why. Maybe it just because it’s change and I and most people don’t like change. How will that change the way I use the Internet?  It’s a weird though for me, but then again the only social networking site I’m on is Facebook and maybe login 2 times a month. I don’t make friends on the Internet as a rule that I follow and not part random groups.  I guess in my mind a nonprivate vs. private Internet are the same  to me because there are people that know how to manipulate the computer and write programs for everything. Those who are open are going to be open and those who want to hide their identity are going to find a way to hide. Which is the same right now, those who are open are going to share opening and those who want to hide, don’t share. I think that if the Internet would go non-private it would give people a false allusion of safety because like I said before of new computer programming.

Article #7

I can't believe 50% of students admitted to cheating in 2002. That just seems like a lot of students are cheating and kind of makes me upset because here I am working really hard to make sure I cite everything and study hard, but to think that possibly 50% of my classmates are not doing the same. That just does not add up to me. What does this mean for this generation that cheats?

I'm going to go on a rant know. I just don't understand what are these students thinking when they cheat? In the short run they get good grades but what about the long run? What kind of professionals are they going to become? What is the point of going to school if all they are going to do is cheat? They are cheating themselves and their future employers and clients. Studying is supposed to be hard. School is supposed to be hard. I’m getting so tired of the up in coming generation that is all about instant gratification. It’s all about getting the newest and greatest technology as fast as they can. About getting the best grades the easiest way possible. Where is the hard work ethic? I got a laptop last year; I did not have the money to get one before then. I got my first cell phone when I was 21yr, my family nor I had the money to get me one before then. I had to work for my phone and laptop before I could get it. Now days I perceive I could be wrong, but laptops are becoming more common for teenagers to have and I know phones are. I think the up in coming technologies could be responsible for the increase in cheating, mainly because it made it easier to cheat and therefore more tempting to cheat. Don’t have any data to back that up but it’s just what I think.

Another thing that really erks me is that students are redefining what "cheating" really is. So now students are cheating but they really don't believe it's cheating when they take other peoples work and say that it’s theirs or download notes into their calculator. I feel like I have to be really careful because how much of this line of thought have I absorbed into my way of thinking. Have I or now I'm sure that in some way plagiarized without evening thinking twice about it. What is really sad is that teachers don't really care if a student uses other people’s work they just have to cite it. I admit citing is a pain in the but. For all my dietetic classes I have to cite in APA and for my one writing class I have to cite in MLA, but if that is what the teachers want, it’s their class and they can set the criteria any way they want. It adds a little more time but in order to get the grade that I want I have to follow the teachers rules. 

I say job well done for all the teachers and Universities that are fighting back.  I think Christe is ingenious for setting up fake web pages and signs-up for her own class under an assumed name. Once she has caught the person she uses the situation as a teaching opportunity to actually help the student become better.  

Artifact 5

Shujie you make a good point about how the porn industry has many good contributions to technology and that is very surprising to hear.  But because of my own bias against porn, I just wish the industry would die. I think that porn is addicting, can really mess people up, and destroy their life.  To say that anything good could come out of the industry is hard, but I guess some good can come out of the bad; they have made the Internet safer. I wish I could have one without the other.  I believe their whole reasoning for making these breakthroughs is because their clientele. Porn is one of those things that is very private. It is not one of those things that people start up a conversation about. People do not like admitting that they look at porn because in our society it holds a negative association of just being discussing(in my view as a Christian) but I believe even in non-Christian circles its one of those things that may be accepted more but not talked about. It’s a topic that is private and that is why I believe that privacy it the driving force of porn industry coming up with their new technology. They are in the business where their ability of keeping peoples identities will make or break them.  If anyone and everyone could look up and see who visits porn sites than they would not have much of business online.

Artifact 3

I don’t know what to think about this audio. What does our future hold if the Internet as it interrupts our brains ability to process short term memory into long term memory? Will our brains adapt somehow? They will adapt, but will I be losing something that I value but don’t realize it. I like to be able to focus and have deep thoughts/ reflection about me and the people around me. I may be able to hold on to this but what about my children. The Internet will be a larger part of their life than it in my life.  I still remember a time when I did not use the Internet at all, but for my children’s whole life they will have access to the Internet. I don’t think I will be able to stop their use. The Internet and the technology that comes with it is the wave of the future. I would be hindering my children’s ability if I did not allow it in their life. If I don’t allow it in my life I will be hindering my ability to protect them from the dangers that come with the Internet. I guess it comes down to finding the healthy balance of being connected vs. disconnected. Will my children have trouble with processing short term memory into long term memory? How will teaching change? Are teachers finding it more difficult to get their student to reflect and really think critically about something?

I am not a person that is very techy. I know just enough about the Internet to use it and am smart enough to figure out what I don’t know. I never have the newest technology, it always takes me a year or so to adapt (mainly because I just don’t have the money to keep up or don’t value having the newest technology). I just started texting just over a year ago. I check my facebook page maybe once a month.  I strongly dislike checking my email and I have a job and teachers that require me to check my email every day : !   I’m a person that likes being disconnected. Being available 24/7 is not what I want. I like being around people but not computers as much. Now after saying all this, I am open to new technology and I don’t want to be left behind because like I said earlier it is the wave of the future. I am limiting myself if I reject the Internet and what it can do for me.

Nickolas Carr’s findings really disturb me a little. Maybe just like other past inventions that had negative attributes, but still prevailed so the Internet will overcome their negative attributes somehow.  The whole world does not have the Internet and they survive. What will happen if for some reason we get disconnected? Carr almost made it sound like being distracted and the Internet were addicting. I also wonder what the Internet is doing to our health. Obesity is on the rise is that because people are at the keyboard instead of outside playing games? Being connected to me is almost like being sedentary because when people are not on the Internet they are usually actively doing something else.  Maybe not physical exercise but more moving than non-moving.

Artifact 2

This audio really stuck me in a good way. I really want to read his book now. Today when I hear people talk about the Internet or technology I usually hear a group of people on one side or the other. One view is the Internet is bad (usually the older generations) and we need to get rid of it. The other side see the Internet as good (younger generations) and they can't live without it. I rarely hear the argument about finding a balance between the two, the idea of being "disconnected" distancing ourselves from society norms for our own benefit.  It is interesting to me to see that this problem is not a new problem, but all throughout history there has been the struggle between the demands that new technology has on our life and how do we adjust to that new technology.

When he mentioned the Internet Sabbath it made me think of a time when I made a pledge to not watch TV for a whole semester. I did it, but the first week was the hardest. I would find myself watching TV without even realizing it. My family had to remind me of my pledge.  After the first week I was good for the rest of the semester. I never realized how much TV had become an addicting habit in my life. I felt free to do other activities. The semester made me realize that I had a choice to choose not to watch. It was so freeing to say "no" like I was in bondage before. I think the same goes for any new technology. We forget we have a choice of how much technology we want in our life and in some ways how much we want technology to control our life.

I have a teacher that does mindful mediations at the beginning of class. The meditations try to quiet the mind to focus on just our breath without other thought interrupting. It is hard to do, but I think it speaks of what Sincak -“The restless energy of the hunted mind” and Shakespeare-“Clear the clutter of the distracted globe” were talking about. The mediations also challenge us students to focus our minds throughout the day on one task at a time. If I am going up the stairs focus on just going up the stairs not think about what I’m going to eat for lunch while going up the stairs. Our minds get clutter with so much today. Life is so simple as a child, because everything is taken care of, food, housing, and daily activities are governed by parent. I believe children have the ability to think of only one thing at a time, because they don’t have to think of everything else, but I also believe we as adult have the ability to do the same thing but we have to choose to do it, it does not come naturally like when we were children.

He also mentioned a study that concluded that 3D tools such as paper are easier on then mind than digital tools or something to that effect. I don’t like reading on a computer screen. Anything that I have to read that is more than a page I prefer to read on paper. I don’t know why. It is annoying to me to read from a screen. With a computer I can’t just cuddle up in a blanket and read I have to position the computer just right so I can see the screen.

Unit 5 and 6 summary

Unit 5 starts off by speaking about CMC social groups. Study of CMC social group is very dynamic and the groups function differently than face-to-face (ftf) because it is written communication. One of the differences is explained through Reduced Social Cues (RSC) model. This is a concept that says that CMC is more difficult to have a natural flowing conversation and more effort has to be given into what is typed than with ftf. Anonymity is another difference in CMC  and has many different degrees. One example given is that a person may use a false name in a chatroom while in an email use their real name and know the other persons as well. Some of the down sides to in CMC group dynamic are disinhibition, deindividualtion, polarization, and conformity. Disinhibition and deindividualtion, and polarization are very much determined on context.  Polarization and conformity tie into each other because sometimes it is easier to pick a side and pick the majority side than to sit in the middle by themselves.  The upsides to CMC group dynamics are cohesion, interactivity, and identity. All three come attach to each other to help people come together and stay together as a group. There is another model that helps us understand CMC better. It is Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE model) which contradicts RSC model because it present the idea that loss of physical and social cues are not as prominent in CMC as originally thought and that CMC could actually be more effective than ftf.

Unit 6 starts out talking about the myth of how CMC is “thrill-spill-and-kill” meaning that people have the right to act however they want , share whatever they want, be rude to whoever they want on the Internet. Flames/flaming is perceived online hostility. Some of the examples given are indecent messages, rudeness, and profane language. RSC model believes that this hostility comes because no physical cues are present to limit what is said. Interactional-normative framework contradicts RSC because its main focus is on the response that is fits within the context of the online conversation. Flame language can be perceived differently depending on the context. Interactional-normative framework has four major principles.

1.       Need for definitional clarity

2.       Direct consideration of social and relational context

3.       Investigation of functions rather than reliance on value judgments

4.       Prioritization of communication over technology

The normal way of life of any group and relationship history both take part in creating the context in CMC. There are five qualities of CMC that make it different than other forms of communication.  They are packet switching, sensory appeal, interactivity, synchronicity, and hypertextuality.  Embedded media is how dependent and integrated people have become on the Internet to do activities in their daily lives. Social capital is another term similar to embedded media because it speaks of how much of people’s social network is on the Internet.  There are two approaches to how to study how embedded people are in the Internet and what they use it for.

1.       Very quantitative with controls, specific variables and processes of CMC

2.       Very qualitative people observe and describe what people do every day with CMC

Both units present models that come together and said that CMC is very complex and unpredictable just like ftf communication.

Artifact #1

I think the Internet is a great source for news. The Internet is there 24/7 not just early in the morning or evening when people may not be home to see. TV news also has a boring vibe with me. Maybe the vibe came from when I was a child, but it just does not catch my attention not to mention its always talking about who was murdered in North City, a string of brake inns that are going on, or all the damage done by a storm that moved through. This kind of news depresses me and I wander what is going on in this world I live in? Then the clips are short, but sometimes too short and I find myself wanting to know more about a particular story and all of a sudden the clip is over. Where do I go to find out more? The Internet. The study does not say anything to this effect but, I think my view is similar to others my age. It’s a generational move from TV to Internet. While some of the older generations are also moving more toward the Internet for new, I believe a large majority will not because TV news is what they are used to and like.

Through the Internet I have more access to different kinds of news, not just the bias news of whatever station I am watching at the moment. If I want only to hear about humanitarian work going on in the world or if I want to hear about the genocide that is going on in Darfur I can look it up. Either way through TV or Internet it is hard to keep up with everything. When I am on the Internet I have a tendency to look up international news more and I lose what’s going on in St. Louis, when I watch the evening news I lose what’s going on outside of St. Louis.

All the Facebook and Twitter news feeds sound great, but are people really paying attention to the news feed or has it become, like the pop up advertisements that people ignore. I think it would be an interesting to see a research study done on what kind of news people look up and read. This study just made me think of questions.

Are people more interested in international, national, or local?
Since more and more people are moving to the Internet, more and more people have access to the Internet. What does the future hold for how news is mediated?
Does the Internet bring better news?
Does the Internet make it hard to find the news people want because they may have to sift through more stories to get to the one I want?
TV news can only cover so much, while the Internet is unlimited to what it can offer in terms of news. In the future will there be any need for TV news?

This study only makes me wonder what direction and how news will be mediated in the future. I have many unanswered questions, but they will be answered throughout my life.

Units 3 and 4

I think it is interesting that one of the reason the Internet was first created was for people to share their research with others in their field. Research is very objective and fact oriented. In research there is really no need to get the subjective side, because that does not have any application in the field. Now days the Internet is used for much more than for sharing research but also for human relationships which is very much subjective to what people feel. This is kind of a role reversal from what the Internets first purpose was. The Internet did its job very well, but now it has to adapt to how people use it today to fit the needs of its users. It has come a long way through emoticons, Skyp, and gmail video chat. All this to try and bring CMC as close as it can to being face to face.